tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40613852471423246582024-02-08T07:26:03.208-05:00Quo VadimusA Detroit Sports Blog, Television Blog, Political Blog, and "Anything Else That is Interesting Blog". And all in Latin. Or maybe not.Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.comBlogger384125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-16322109678295690292009-04-26T22:17:00.003-04:002009-04-26T22:54:08.202-04:00Defending the (In?)defensible: The 2009 Detroit Lions Draft<!-- google_ad_section_start -->Long time no blog (mainly because I've been using <a href="http://www.twitter.com/swarheit/" target="new">Twitter so much</A>) but sometimes you need more than 140 characters, and if I'm going to defend the 2009 Detroit Lions draft, I may need 10 times that amount.<br /><br />If newspaper articles, calls to talk radio, reaction at the Lions' own draft party, and comments from friends and family members are any indication, Matt Millen would have had an easier time pleasing the Lions faithful than what new GM Martin Mayhew and head coach Jim Schwartz put together. The newspaper columns are brutal, fans booed nearly every pick at Ford Field, I had to talk one friend off the ledge on the phone this afternoon, and another described the draft tonight as "TERRIBLE" (capitals included). Welcome to Detroit Matt Stafford and Jim Schwartz, where Lions fans have been bred to lose the "benefit of the doubt gene."<br /><br />And there's every reason <B>not</B> to give the Lions the benefit of the doubt. After all, Matt Millen for eight years, produced eight years of wasted drafts. Two of the Lions first round picks of the Millen era (Charles Rogers and Mike Williams) are out of football. Another (Joey Harrington) is hanging on by a thread. Others aren't even with the Lions anymore (Roy Williams and Kevin Jones), and the ones that are (Jeff Backus, Ernie Sims, and Gosder Cherilus) have not lived up to expectations. And those late round gems every other team seems to find? Well, not so much with the Lions. Brian Calhoun has spent the better part of three years on IR though, and we've wasted more second round picks than most teams have had in eight years, so that's something.<br /><br />All that is said to lay the foundation for this: Lions fans, I understand your frustration, and I understand your pessimism. But, let's also be honest, the Lions draft was far from "terrible" and it was certainly not the epic disaster most are portraying it as. We can disagree about the pick of QB Matt Stafford #1 overall, and had I been running the Lions, I probably would have taken Baylor left tackle Jason Smith (despite my love of Wake Forrest linebacker Aaron Curry, and I think he's going to be a leader in Seattle for the next decade, you can't take a linebacker #1 overall, give him $60 million, and then move him to middle linebacker, a position he's never played before -- you just can't do it), but if the Lions truly believe he can be an elite quarterback, they couldn't pass on him. You can't say "well, it didn't work out with Andre Ware or Joey Harrington or Chuck Long" so Stafford's destined to fail too. And I don't even mind the big contract, because, the Lions had no choice. Once they decided to take a QB #1 overall, the money was going to be outrageous. There was nothing they could do; they were slaves to the out-of-whack NFL rookie salary system.<br /><br />The big problem Lions fans seem to have is that with both the team's second first round pick #20, and the first pick in the second round, #33, the Lions did not address a glaring need at middle linebacker. And there's no question, the Detroit Lions need a middle linebacker. With last year's starter Paris Lenon unsigned, there isn't one on the roster at the moment. That's a problem. But the Lions have <B>a lot</B> of problems. While we haven't had a Pro Bowl QB since the 1970's, that was also the last time the team had an elite tight end (and please, David Sloan doesn't count -- he was good, but certainly not great). And there's certainly no question the current Lions team also lacks a quality tight end. The team also lacks a play making free safety, in the mold of an Ed Reed or Bob Sanders.<br /><br />So, with multiple holes, and only a limited number of picks with which to fill them, Martin Mayhew and Jim Schwartz did what they could. They went with the highest rated player on their board, pretty much regardless of position. And that meant taking tight end Brandon Pettigrew #20 overall, despite the needs on defense. This just infuriated most Lions fans, especially with MLB's Rey Rey Maualuga and James Laurinaitis on the board. But, Pettigrew was ranked as Mel Kiper's #7 overall prospect, was by far the #1 tight end in the draft, and is one of the most complete tight-end prospects in years. Not only does he have soft hands and NFL quality speed (though he's not going to blow by people) but he's a monster blocker thanks to his 6'5", 260-pound frame. So, not only does he give the Lions another weapon to take pressure off of Calvin Johnson, but he instantly makes the running game and the offensive line better because of his elite blocking skills. He can step in and start immediately, and he'll make a huge impact as a rookie.<br /><br />Of course the Lions needed help on defense, but the fact that no NFL team thought it wise to take Maualuga or Laurinatis in the first round (or even into the second) ought to tell you something. It's easy to fall in love with big name players from big name college programs who we watch every week for years and are on the cover of Sports Illustrated (like Maualuga was the week before the draft) and see them make great plays and big hits, and say "we need that guy." And that's especially true when you are a team like the Lions who lack a defensive identity. But, this is a multi-year rebuilding process for the Lions. We're not going from 0-16 to the playoffs, we're not the next Miami Dolphins or Atlanta Falcons. We can't afford to pass up talent for need. We need players, at every position. We can't afford to be choosy.<br /><br />The next sin, according to the local media and local fans, was passing up Mauluga nad Laurinatis again at #33 to take Western Michigan safety Louis Delmas. Delmas, though, was the #1 safety in the draft, and safety is becoming an elite, and vital position in the league (maybe even more so than middle linebacker). If Delmas lives up to his potential, Lions fans will be very happy, even if he's not a middle linebacker.<br /><br />Jim Schwartz said today the Lions were not going to "fit square pegs into round holes" with the linebackers in this draft. Who am I, who didn't watch film on these guys, didn't interview them or see them work out at their pro day or the Combine, to say Schwartz is wrong? I know as Lions fans we have been conditioned to believe our coaches are bafoons, but I liked the hiring of Jim Schwartz. I have to at least give him one draft to get the types of players he thinks will fit best in his scheme.<br /><br />Now, was I thrilled with all of the Lions picks? No. Day 2, while it obtained some depth at both defensive and offensive tackle, and brought us two potential kick returners (another desperate need), also included two outside linebackers. Maybe they can move inside, but the last thing we needed were more athletic outside linebackrs. And nary a defensive end or cornerback was taken. So, I was a bit less happy with Sunday than I was with Saturday.<br /><br />So, maybe I'm just a Lions apologist, but I'm not expecting the Lions to rebuild overnight. We need players, <B>everywhere</B> and when you can leave a draft with the top player at three different positions of need (quarterback, tight end, and safety), even if you didn't address your most pressing need (middle linebacker) I can live with that. As Martin Mayhew said before the draft, as much as the draft is about next year, it's really about three, four years down the road. Of course we didn't fill all of our needs this weekend. But, this is a process, and one the Lions have just begun. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-62506109618879511052009-03-01T07:53:00.002-05:002009-03-01T08:08:15.286-05:00Lions Struggle in Free Agency, But Its Not Mayhew's Fault<!-- google_ad_section_start -->Despite having almost $40 million to spend in cap room, and more starting positions to fill than almost any team in football, the Detroit Lions have had a quiet start to free agency. Sure, they've signed a backup running back (Maurice Morris, a solid pickup, sure), a second or third option at wide receiver (the talented, but always seemingly disappointing Bryant Johnson), and picked up a couple of cornerbacks (aging veteran Anthony Henry from Dallas in a trade for Jon Kitna, and former Tennessee Titan backup Eric King) but certainly, for a team that went 0-16, these signings aren't going to instantly make the Lions a contender for much of anything.<br /><br />Yet, I'm not upset, nor do I even remotely blame new Lions general manger Martin Mayhew. In fact, I give Mayhew high marks for how he's handled this off-season so far. Why? Because had things gone according to plan, the Lions would be in a much different position right now, and for once, the plan was not foiled by the Lions ineptitude, but by that of other teams.<br /><br />First, the Lions had finally filled the left guard spot vacated when Matt Millen, in his first season as general manager, balked at paying Pro Bowl guard Jeff Hartings a few hundred thousand dollars more to stay in the Detroit. Instead, Hartings continued to visit Pro Bowls as a member of the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the Millen regime was off and running in the wrong direction (little did we know at the time just how much the Hartings decision was a foreshadowing of things to come). This time, though, the Lions had lined up a trade with Buffalo for guard Derrick Dockery. Dockery is in the prime of his career and would have been the first real replacement for Hartings in almost a decade. He would have solidified the offensive line and would have instantly improved the Lions team. So what happened? <a href="http://freep.com/article/20090301/SPORTS01/903010419/1048" target="blank">The Bills screwed up the paperwork</A> and failed to get it to the league office in time before Dockery was due a roster bonus. They chose to cut him instead, and the Lions were left with nothing. And despite offering Dockery more money than he later received from the Washington Redskins, Dockery chose D.C., his previous home before he went to Buffalo two seasons ago. Mayhew tried, but forces beyond his control kept the Lions without a starting offensive lineman.<br /><br />An even larger disappointment perhaps was when Denver backed out of a potential trade for Jay Cutler. The Lions were trying to use their second round pick to trade for New England QB Matt Cassel, who the Lions would have then shipped to Denver in exchange for Cutler, who would instantly become the best quarterback the Lions have had in at least four decades. Denver, though, ultimately decided against moving Cutler, and the Patriots sent Cassel to Kansas City.<br /><br />So, had Mayhew had his way, the Lions, along with the signings of Johnson, Morris, and King, would have added a top LG and one of the league's best quarterbacks to the Lions. And both were very close to happening, and both failed due to no fault of the Lions. And yet, Mayhew didn't get discouraged, and instead, went back to work. He somehow was able to get something for Jon Kitna, the quarterback the Lions would have cut in the next 48-hours before a roster bonus came due, sending him to Dallas for Henry, who, while aging, was a starter on one of the league's best defenses last season.<br /><br />Would I have liked to see the Lions acquire more talent so far in free agency? Absolutely. But, it hasn't been for a lack of effort. And I like how Mayhew's mind seems to be working, as he is trying everything possible, and considering every option, to improve the Lions. Let's just hope in the next few days, if the Lions have another blockbuster move lined up, he's actually able to pull it off. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-1822970085483306022009-02-15T21:01:00.002-05:002009-02-15T21:41:14.430-05:00Blogging about Twittering and Facebook Statusing<!-- google_ad_section_start -->I have joined the phenomenon which is Twitter. As Sam Seaborn once said on <I>West Wing</I>, let's forget the fact that I'm coming a<br />little late to the party and embrace the fact that I showed up at all.<br /><br />I was an early adopter to Facebook, joining back in the days when it was limited to .edu e-mail addresses (almost seems quaint now), but I've been slow to the other platforms which have defined this technological age. I started this blog back almost two years ago now (well after blogs became commonplace -- although, in my defense, I did write for the nascent MLive.com back in 1997, and created and edited other websites in the late 1990s, which had a lot of blog-like qualities before the term blog was coined). But I never got into "Twittering," figuring instead that anytime I had anything to say, I'd just post it here. And since I like to drone on and use five words when two would do (a habit I'm trying to break when it comes to drafting legal briefs), limiting myself to the 140 words of a Twitter update seemed too constraining. Plus, I always had Facebook status updates to use whenever I did want to say something, succinctly, about what I was up to.<br /><br />I've had a change of heart though, and now, <a href="http://www.twitter.com/swarheit/" target="blank"><B>You can follow me on Twitter</A></B>. And I have Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill to thank. I never really followed people's "Tweets" on Twitter before I think Ben Smith at Politco (or maybe it was Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic, I forget which) referenced the Senator's Twittering of the negotiations over President Obama's stimulus bill. <a href="https://twitter.com/clairecmc" target="blank">McCaskill's Twitters</A> were candid (refreshing for a Washington politician) and I became hooked reading them (so much so that I put my following of the Senator's messages on my list of "25 Interesting Things About Me" on Facebook -- Another internet fad I gave into, but in a much quicker fashion). It was about then I realized the value of Twitter, and how entertaining and informative the content people post on Twitter can be. And along with now following Twitter feeds of friends of mine, there's <a href="https://twitter.com/davidgregory" target="blank">David Gregory of Meet the Press</A>, <a href="https://twitter.com/TheFix" target="blank">The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza</A> and others. Some of the posts are interesting, others just allow you to see the real person behind the column or television show that you read or see. And, I think it can only be good for business. If I feel like I know David Gregory or Chris Cillizza a little bit better as people because I read their Twitter feed, I'm going to be more likely to watch Meet the Press as opposed to This Week or read The Fix as opposed to something else. It's another great example of the internet making our vast world smaller, and actually bringing people together (especially when people like Gregory use their Twitter feed to actively engage with and communicate with viewers or readers).<br /><br />So by joining the ranks of Twitter, does that mean I am abandoning the Facebook status update? Not at all. While the two appear to serve the same function (Facebook asks 'What Are You Doing Right Now?' while Twitter asks 'What Are You Doing?') I see them as two very different and distinct mediums. Twitter is almost a mini-blog, a stream-of-consciousness collection of thoughts as they hit me. Thoughts that don't merit an entire blog post, but yet, seem worth sharing. I'll continue to use Facebook status updates, on the other hand, for just that, status updates. I like that distinction because I'm friends with hundreds of more people on Facebook than I am on Twitter, so actually using the status update to update my status makes more sense. Plus, I can see updating Twitter multiple times a day -- If I did that on Facebook, it would quickly overwhelm my wall and my friends' Newsfeeds, and that wouldn't be good for anyone. What we need is a Twitter application for Facebook which posts your Twitter feed without clogging your Newsfeed or Wall, and without hijacking your Facebook status updates. I'm sure that's coming (if it doesn't already exist).<br /><br />So, now I feel my life is almost <I>too</I> integrated with the internet, though I'm sure I'll get over their feeling soon enough. But with a blog column for an internet newspaper, this blog, my Facebook account, and now, Twitter (most of which I can view and update from my Blackberry -- No wonder President Obama refused to give his up) odds are something else will soon come along that will further strengthen this bond. Yet, I don't think that's a bad thing. As I said, there's something about Twittering that connects people, and I'm sure in the future, we'll see the value and utility of those connections expand exponentially.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-89114633073667195572009-02-02T19:37:00.002-05:002009-02-02T20:19:03.686-05:00Welcome to Monday, the New Thursday<!-- google_ad_section_start -->Remember was Thursday was "Must See TV"? Didn't seem that long ago. <I>Friends, Seinfeld, ER, Mad About You</I>, a bunch of other random sitcoms that never made it, like Fred Savage's <I>Working</I> and that Christina Applegate sitcom (<I>Jesse</I> maybe?). Thursday's aren't so much good for that anymore. Now all we have (that I watch anyway -- and that's the only thing that's important right?) is <I>Survivor</I>. Sure, other people watch <I>CSI</I> and <I>The Office</I> and <I>30 Rock</I> (and <I>Grey's Anatomy</I> I guess, but I think most folks, like me, have just become annoyed with that show), but Thursday is certainly a far cry from the appointment television it used to be.<br /><br />And then, there's Monday. So many shows my DVR is on the verge of over-exhaustion. Here's my schedule for tonight (or say a normal Monday, considering I've got a few other things on my plate tonight -- And I can fit all this in thanks to the magic of my DVR which turns a 60 minute show into 42 commercial free minutes of television:<br /><center><B>8:00-8:50</B> -- <I>Countdown with Keith Olbermann</I><br /><B>8:50-9:30</B> -- <I>House</I><br /><B>9:30-10:10</B> -- <I>24</I><br /><B>10:10-10:30</B> -- <I>How I Met Your Mother</I><br /><B>10:30-11:10</B> -- <I>Trust Me</I><br /><B>11:10-11:50</B> -- <I>Heroes</I><br /><B>11:50-sleep:</B> -- <I>The Tonight Show</I></center><br />Now, of course, I don't <I>have</I> to watch everything in one night, but if I'm home, I might as well gorge on television. But just look at that lineup. A news show, a late night show, three dramas, a dramedy, a comedy, five networks (NBC, MSNBC, CBS, FOX, and TNT). <br /><br />How can you top Monday? You can't. <I>House</I>, I've already written about. <I>24</I>, obviously, has had its ups and downs. The shows' fifth season (the Evil President Logan year) was one of the best season's of television I've ever seen. The next season (the Evil Jack's family year) was one of the worst. When I heard the show was bringing Tony Almeida back from the dead, this season, I thought the show was getting desperate. Yet, the explanation for his return is very logical and has been well-handled, and this season has been very good so far. Back to the <I>24</I> of old. I am getting a bit tired though of moles in the upper echelon of the White House. <I>24</I>'s done that to death already, and it was a focal point of <I>Prison Break</I> and numerous other shows. It's time to come up with some new obstacle.<br /><br /><I>Heroes</I>, similarly, has had its ups and downs, but I'm not giving up on it yet, as the new chapter which begins tonight ("Fugitives") looks to recapture the magic of the first season (though every new chapter supposedly was supposed to do that). Bringing in the brilliant Zeljko Ivanek is a great start, as from <I>Damages</I> to <I>John Adams</I> to <I>24</I> to <I>The West Wing</I>, Zeljko is great in everything he's in.<br /><br />The recent success of <I>How I Met Your Mother</I> is gratifying as a longtime fan of the show. It didn't have a lot of critical or rating success in its first years, but CBS stuck with it, and it's the only comedy I watch, and it's both very funny, and yet, a show with a soul at the same time, which isn't just mindless slapstick (though there's some of that too). It continues to grow its audience, and it's hitting its stride (especially when <I>Scrubs'</I> Sarah Chalke guest starred last season into this start of this season). <br /><br />And <I>Trust/Me</I>, while new, seems to be a show worth watching. I was always a big fan of NBC's <I>Ed</I>, and Tom Cavanaugh brings a lot of Ed Stevens to his role as an ad writer in this buddy dramedy about the modern world of advertising. Plus -- Monday means Headlines on Jay Leno. Can't beat that.<br /><br />So, I guess my message to the TV executives (who, I'm sure, read my blog on a daily basis): Spread the wealth. Why have all your good shows on Monday? There's tons of bad television on the other six days of the week, save my DVR some work. Or, maybe it's better to have all these shows on the same day. You can watch them all and have the rest of the week TV free (except for <I>NCIS</I>, <I>LOST</I>, <I>Damages</I>, <I>Survivor</I>, <I>The Amazing Race</I> and <I>60 Minutes</I> of course, plus nightly editions of <I>Hardball</I>, <I>Countdown</I>, <I>Rachel Maddow</I>, and <I>The Tonight Show</I>). <br /><br />And with that, I need to get back to my television.<br /> <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-77324611925389325872009-01-28T18:34:00.003-05:002009-01-28T22:08:14.175-05:00Zero Republicans Support Saving The Economy From Ruin<!-- google_ad_section_start -->Well, okay, maybe the headline overstates things. But, perhaps not by that much. In a vote tonight on the $800-billion-plus stimulus package which, in part, is designed to save us from the second Great Depression, <a href="http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/stimulus-passes-house-with-no.html" target="blank">not a SINGLE Republican voted for it.</A> <br /><br />The Republicans need a public relations lesson. Now, I understand there are things in the stimulus plan the Republicans don't like (or, a lot they don't like). And I understand they weren't happy that the bill was entirely written by House Democrats and they weren't given any input on the bill from Nancy Pelosi and company. And there's something to be said for sticking together and showing the Democrats and the President that they won't be pushed around.<br /><br />Except, this was entirely the wrong moment and the wrong bill to do something like this. Not that we should be surprised. Earlier this week, <B>before</B> the President ventured to Capitol Hill to meet with Republicans in both the House and Senate to discuss the Stimulus Bill, Republicans already decided they were going to vote against it. This was despite the President being more than willing to listen to and even incorporate some Republican demands -- Such as removing money for family planning and adding an almost $70 million patch to shield middle-income Americans from the Alternative Minimum Tax.<br /><br />The President, in fact, has gone out of his way to be bi-partisan. He's had Republicans to the White House. He's gone to Republicans on Capitol Hill. And he's having them over <I>again</I> tonight. And even if one disagrees over the Stimulus Bill as written, there's no question everyone agrees (or, at least, every reasonable person agrees) that <I>something</I> has to be done. The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of some sort of stimulus/recovery bill, and now the Republicans look completely obstructionist. Not only did they decide to oppose the bill even before Obama had the chance to talk to them about it, they <B>ALL</B> voted against it. It's just not believable that every single Republican was against the Stimulus Bill. 95%, sure. But 100%? No. This vote was nothing more than a cheap shot at the President because the Republicans are upset with Nancy Pelosi.<br /><br />Well, the Republicans need to get over it. America is hemorrhaging jobs. Small businesses are closing by the hour and behemoths like Microsoft are laying off thousands of people. We don't have the luxury of our past pettiness. Republicans are in the minority. That means they don't get to write big legislation like the Stimulus Bill anymore. It also means the White House and Democrats don't have to compromise with them at all, at least in the House, where the filibuster doesn't exist. Yet, the White House was more than willing to comprise. And the Republicans responded by poking a stick in his eye. Metaphorically of course (otherwise, I'm sure the Secret Service would have gotten involved). <br /><br />After all, if this is what Barack Obama gets for trying to be conciliatory towards Republicans, what motivation does he have to continue to compromise? Democrats should have passed a trillion dollar stimulus -- They would have gotten the same exact number of Republican votes. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-18768053113809861952009-01-20T18:35:00.003-05:002009-01-20T19:27:14.964-05:00A Eulogy for WDFN, AM 1130, The Fan<!-- google_ad_section_start -->While it was a great day for the United States, with the inauguration of President Barack Obama, it is sad day in Detroit. That's because <a href="http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090120/SPORTS07/901200419/1435" target="blank">WDFN, Detroit's first all-sports radio station was, for all intents and purposes, eliminated</A> in a nation-wide cost cutting sweep by its parent company, Clear Channel Communication. Former host and program director Gregg Henson <a href="http://gregghenson.typepad.com/gregg_hensoncom/2009/01/seclear-channel-bloodbath-is-wdfn-toast.html" target="blank">warned that this was coming earlier this week</A>, but I didn't want to believe it. Yet, the reality is here, and all of WDFN's local programming, including the Stoney and Wojo show, are history. And all without even the courtesy of a last show for any of WDFN's personalities, like Mike Stone, who has been with the station from day one in July of 1994. <br /><br />While it seems almost silly to say outloud, WDFN has played an incredibly important role in my life, and I am especially sad to see the station as we know it end. I have listened to the station since its inception, where as an eleven-year-old, I couldn't believe my luck that a radio station which talked sports 24-hours-a-day had started. And so I started listening, to Mike Stone and Rob Parker, and Butch Stearns and Larry Sorensen, and Van Earl Wright, and, of course, the Mega Mega Sports Man Ike Griffen. And I started writing, just for myself, sports "columns" about what was going on in the sports world.<br /><br />And one Friday afternoon, while at my grandparents for a family dinner, I faxed in one of these "columns" to the afternoon show hosted by Rob Parker and Mike Stone. The column was about the Detroit Lions and how insane it was that despite a blowout loss in the playoffs to Philadelphia, coach Wayne Fontes somehow got a contract extension. As you can see, nothing changes with the Lions. I still remember the thrill I had when Rob Parker read the last line of that column on the air ("Mr. Ford, you could have lost your coach, but you lost your mind instead.") and commented on how clever it was. <br /><br />I was hooked. After that point, you couldn't get me off the air at WDFN. From calling into Stoney and Parker's show, to impersonating Hulk Hogan on Ike Griffen's show and winning ringside tickets to WCW's Halloween Havoc pay-per-view event at Joe Louis to proposing absurd Detroit Pistons' trades with Art Regner and Gregg Henson on the "Sunday Afternoon Sit-In," I was a regular caller at WDFN. The morning show, then hosted by Butch Stearns and Keith Gave, became my favorite show, and the one I called into the most. And Butch and Keith were great, allowing a twelve-year-old kid to ramble on and on. They kept me on the air sometimes for a half hour or more, taking phone calls, and acting as a de-facto co-host. <br /><br />And then, one day, it was over. WDFN went through a massive reorganization, and Butch and Keith were unceremoniously let go from the station. Unlike today's bloodletting, though, Butch and Keith were at least allowed to have a final show to say goodbye to their listeners. I was in seventh-grade at the time, and my math teacher, Nicole Champe (who, later, went on to marry WDFN Program Director Gregg Henson) allowed me to go down to the teacher's lounge and call in to Butch and Keith so I could appear on their last show. Later that day, at lunch, I called Keith, who had become somewhat of a mentor to me, and I'll always remember him telling me that while sports journalism was the greatest job in the world, that job security was not something the industry provided. It was something I always kept in mind when deciding whether or not to pursue a sports journalism career full-time.<br /><br />And the fact that I had that option to consider at all, and the fact that I was able to write for <I>The Detroit Sports Confidential</I>, <I>The Oakland Press</I>, <I>The Detroit Jewish News</I>, <I>Michigan Live</I> (twice), and <I>The Detroit News</I>, would have never happened without WDFN. Without the encouragement of people like Mike Stone, Butch Stearns, Keith Gave, Art Regner, Gregg Henson, Jamie Samulson, Damon Perry, Rob Parker and Bob Wojnowski, who humored a teenager who thought he knew it all about sports by letting him on the air and reading his faxes and columns he sent in, I never would have had that start in sports writing. In fact, my first real "gig," at the <I>Detroit Sports Confidential</I> came about because the editor of the monthly sports magazine heard me co-hosting The Great American Sports Trivia Show, a weekend show WDFN aired back in the mid 1990s. Without the Confidential, there would have been no future columns anywhere else. And there wouldn't have been a job at the Confidential without WDFN.<br /><br />What this city will also miss, in addition to the radio station itself, the news it broke, and the analysis that it provided, is the yearly Stoney and Wojo radiothon. Each year, the station came together, spearheaded by Mike Stone and Bob Wojnowski, to raise money for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Over a million dollars have been raised through Stoney and Wojo's dedication to defeat the disease and I'm proud to have attended and donated to many of the radiothons. I'll always remember the 2000 radiothon, hosted at the Star Southfield. Stoney and Wojo had scheduled a live interview with actress Elizabeth Berkley (of <I>Saved by the Bell</I> fame and <I>Showgirls</I> infamy). I was working on yearbook at the time at North Farmington High School, where Berkley attended for her freshman and sophomore years before she moved to California to become Jessie Spano. So, learning that she was going to be interviewed in the afternoon, I grabbed an old 1988 yearbook from the back office, and headed to the radiothon. Knowing me from my history with the station and sports writing, Stoney and Wojo put a headset on me during Elizabeth's live interview, and we all had a good laugh about her pre-fame days at North Farmington. Afterward, she signed that yearbook for me, and it's one of my favorite stories to tell (as most of my friends know -- most have heard it more than once). If nothing else, the legacy of WDFN should be the money raised to fight cancer, and hopefully, that tradition does not die with the station where it began.<br /><br />I never worked at WDFN, but today's decision to pull the plug on the station ends a significant chapter in my life. From my twelfth birthday celebrated at WDFN's anniversary party at the Main Event at the Pontiac Silverdome, to the WDFN hockey jersey I still, and will continue, to proudly wear, to all of the columns I have ever written which I owe, at least in part, to WDFN, and to the hosts who have provided me friendship and advice over the years, it is truly an end of an era. And one I will not soon forget. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-35239726059533461182009-01-16T07:15:00.002-05:002009-01-16T07:23:25.235-05:00I like Jim Schwartz Already<!-- google_ad_section_start -->I'll have more thoughts on the hiring of Jim Schwartz later today after I have a chance to listen to his introductory press conference, but I saw <a href="http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/01/15/report-schwartz-wants-bates-or-schottenheimer-to-run-offense/" target="blank">this story at Pro Football Talk</A> this morning and it already makes me feel good about the man the Lions have hired to turn the team around. <blockquote>Now that Jim Schwartz is the new coach of the Detroit Lions, he’ll have to lure assistant coaches to a franchise that has won one playoff game since Dwight D. Eisenhower was running the country.<br /><br />At the top of his list on the offensive side of the ball, per Chris Mortensen of ESPN, are Broncos quarterbacks coach Jeremy Bates and Jets offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer.</blockquote><br />Schottenheimer and Bates are two of the most respected, brightest young offensive minds in football. Schottenheimer is a head-coach in the making and Bates is credited by Jay Cutler as helping him become a Pro Bowl quarterback. Now, there's no guarantee the Lions will be able to hire either (Schottenheimer may become the head coach for the New York Jets, and even if he doesn't, the Jets may hold on to him; And Bates not only signed a three-year extension with Denver just a few weeks ago, but he's already being courted by Oakland to run their offense) but the fact that those two are the leaders in the clubhouse for the Lions tells me a lot. It tells me that Schwartz understands that he needs to bring a new perspective to the Lions offense, and it shows me that he isn't afraid to bring in an offensive coordinator who can pretty much run the offense on his own, allowing Schwartz to concentrate on fixing the Lions porous defense. <br /><br />There are not two better names to hire as offensive coordinator, and the mere fact that Schwartz is focusing on them means he's looking exactaly in the right places to fix the Lions. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-47732047858692395112009-01-12T00:11:00.005-05:002009-01-12T00:37:53.283-05:00Thoughts on the Detroit Lions Coaching Search<!-- google_ad_section_start -->As the Detroit Lions coaching search continues, a few quick hits:<br /><br /><B>*</B> First, I'm happy to see that new General Manager Martin Mayhew, and team President Tom Lewand, are taking their time and talking to everyone. The team has already interviewed at least half a dozen candidates (including defensive coordinators Jim Schwartz (Tennessee Titans), Steve Spagnuolo (New York Giants) and Leslie Frazier (Minnesota Vikings) as well as Dallas Cowboys offensive coordinator Jason Garrett) and, <a href="http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/01/12/lions-reach-out-to-chargers-rivera/" target="blank">could expand to include San Diego Charges defensive coordinator Ron Rivera</A> according to NFL Network's Adam Schefter. Talking to as many candidates as possible and not rushing into a decision or falling in love with one candidate to the exclusion of all others (like Matt Millen did with all of his coaches) shows a thoughtfulness and consideration which is a welcome change for this franchise.<br /><br /><B>*</B> My top candidate, at least for the moment, is Titans' defensive coordinator Jim Schwartz, who is known for his "Moneyball"-esque analysis of defensive statistics (interceptions, much more than fumbles, are the key to winning and losing, and running on third and short is more successful than putting the ball in the air <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/sports/football/23titans.html?_r=1" target="blank">according to this fascinating profile on Schwartz from the New York Times.</A>) Schwartz has done wonders with the Titans defense, has learned from one of the best coaches in the game, Jeff Fisher, and is ready to become a head coach. And the Lions like him, bringing him in for a second interview Monday, which will include owner William Clay Ford, Sr. <br /><br /><B>*</b> But, I have my concerns too. While I understand the need to rebuild a Lions defense which is in desperate need of an overhaul, I can't help but marvel at what the Denver Broncos have been able to do. After stunning the football world by firing Mike Shanahan, the Broncos engaged in a whirlwind coaching search just like the Lions. And given the team's history of success, and the fact that the Broncos were interviewing many of the same candidates the Lions are looking at (like Frazier, Garrett, and Dolphins assistant Todd Bowles), it would be hard not to look at who Denver hired, and say, odds are, they are more likely to make the right hire. And they by-passed all of the Lions candidates (not even speaking to Schwartz, which honestly, does frighten me a little -- if he's such a sure-fire candidate, why didn't Denver even talk to him?) and hired New England Patriots young wiz-kid Josh McDaniels. Now, I'm not sold on McDaniels for a few reasons. The first being his age (32). While I don't think that'll be a handicap in Denver, which is much closer to turning back into a winner than the Lions, when you have a mess like you have in Detroit, I'd want someone with a bit more experience building a franchise. And the second being the very shaky history Bill Belichick's assistants have had as head coaches (two, Eric Mangini and Romeo Crennel, have been fired, though Mangini was recently hired to replace Crennel in Cleveland, and the third, Charlie Weiss, has been a failure at Notre Dame). But, I have to say, the fact that Denver interviewed Leslie Fazier and Jason Garrett, and chose McDaniels tells me something. And McDaniels' first move as head coach does too. <a href="http://blogs.nfl.com/2009/01/12/mike-nolan-bound-for-denver-too/" target="blank">According to Adam Schfter again</A>, he's hiring former San Francisco 49ers head coach Mike Nolan to run his defense. A brilliant move. Nolan is a master defensive coordinator who has the experience to run Denver's defense on his own, allowing McDaniels to concentrate on Jay Cutler and Denver's offense. It's practically getting two head coaches for the price of one. Now, these kinds of arrangements don't always work out (see Detroit's ill-fated attempt to turn its offense over to Mike Martz so Rod Marinelli could run Detroit's defense as a perfect example of that) but something tells me, it will in Denver. <br /><br />And with no knowledge of who would run the Lions offense if the team were to hire any of the defensive coaches the team is currently focused on, I can't help but look at Denver and ask, what do they know that the Lions don't? And I'm reminded of the answer Tim Matheson's character of John Hoynes gave on West Wing when he was asked that question by an inquiring Toby Ziegler: "The total tonnage of what I know that you don't could stun a team of oxen in its tracks. Goodnight." <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-35983316761421881832009-01-10T14:18:00.004-05:002009-01-10T14:53:48.241-05:00What I'm Reading - The Know It All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World<!-- google_ad_section_start -->I've always wanted to write a book. Back, years ago, when I was a teenage sports columnist for <I>The Oakland Press</I> and the <I>Detroit News</I> I had a vision of writing some kind of a sports book. Not sure on what exactaly, but something interesting. I never got very far though. I convinced my parents one summer that instead of getting one of those summer jobs most kids get (like the one I had at Staples or Sam Goody the year before -- As an aside, working at Sam Goody, the mall CD store which may not even exist anymore, when you know next to nothing about music, really doesn't work) I'd write a book instead. I'm still working on that. <br /><br />In 2002 (or 2003, my computer isn't quite sure, and neither am I) I started on "Sterling Sharpe, Wide Open in the Endzone -- One Superfans Journal of the Lovable Losers Known As The Detroit Football Lions." Who knew that six (or seven) years later, they'd really become losers. I got through an introduction (which, ironically, as I look back at it now, started with "I’ve always wanted to write a book", which shows how little has changed with me, or the Lions, in six years) which explained my passion for the Lions, and why I felt qualified at such a young age to write a book about the failings of a franchise which had been a laughingstock for more years than I had been alive. I also got about a page into a prologue, which I titled "The Draft." Maybe one day I'll pick it back up again.<br /><br />But this blog entry isn't about my writing as much as it is about A.J. Jacobs bestseller <I>The Know It All: One Man's Humble Quest to Become the Smartest Person in the World.</I> As those long-time blog readers know, I don't read a lot (or, any, really) fiction, so this kind of book is what qualifies for me as "light reading." Over the summer and early fall of 2008 I was on an American History kick, mainly focused around the Revolutionary period. And after two John Adams biographies, a Jefferson biography, and two Joseph Ellis bestsellers on stories from the American founding, I moved on to the 1800s, and <I>1812: The War That Forged a Nation</I> (good, but too battle intensive and full of military strategy for my tastes) and <I>Lincoln</I>. I was going to start <I>Team of Rivals</I>, but following the 2008 general election ate up a lot of my time, and then I watched the entire first season of <I>Mad Men</I> on Blu-Ray, then got obsessed with House repeats (as I wrote about <a href="http://swarheit.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-im-watching-usa-network-more.html" target="blank">last week</A>) so I haven't read much in a while. And getting back into the swing of things with something entertaining and fun seemed like a good start.<br /><center><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=swarheit-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=0743250621&fc1=000000&IS2=1<1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr&npa=1" style="width:120px;height:240px;" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe></center><br />The book is about magazine columnist and editor A.J. Jacobs' quest to become the smartest person in the world by reading the entire contents of the Encyclopedia Britannica from start to finish. And what may sound dry in description is anything but in print. Jacobs has a very conversational writing style (very similar to what I hope the writing style of this blog is, and very similar to what I would imagine a book I would write would read like). Aside from learning some of the more humorous tidbits Jacobs picked up through his quest (so the book is educational, and like a shorter, punchier, wittier version of Cliff Notes) you can also read about the puzzled and mystified reactions of Jacobs' friends, family, and co-workers to his new found knowledge. So far it's been a very entertaining book, and I should make a decent amount of progress on it before the NFL games start in about an hour and a half. <br /><br />And because I'm enjoying it, it likely means the purchase of Jacobs follow-up book, "The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible." Because just what I need are <I>more</I> books. Hey. Maybe that's an idea for <B>my</B> book. "One Man's Humble Quest to Read All of the Books He Bought Foolishly Believing He'd Ever Have Time to Read Them All." Nah. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-7861654684726908382009-01-08T19:42:00.002-05:002009-01-08T19:56:54.401-05:00The "National Title" Game? Yeah, Not So Much<!-- google_ad_section_start -->I continue to be very annoyed as the hype-machine churns towards tonight's Florida-Oklahoma matchup. Mainly because people keep referring to the game as the "National Title" game. It's not. It's the "BCS Championship Game." No more, no less. It certainly is not the "National Championship" game, as it doesn't include the team that I would vote #1 in the country: Utah.<br /><br />All Utah did was be the only team in the entire country to win every single game it played. Starting with a romp in the Big House over Michigan, to it's domination of Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, there is no question Utah should end the season as National Champion. It won't, of course, but it won't be because of a deficient resume. It beat 4 Top 25 teams, including a 48-24 drubbing of BYU, and a clubbing of Alabama in what was practically a road game. You know, Alabama, the team that was #1 in the country for a significant part of the season? Completely over matched from the start, in a game lost 31-17, and it wasn't even that close. Oregon State, the only team in the country to beat vaunted USC, also lost to Utah. The only real question is, how can this team <I>not</I> be #1 overall at the end of the season?<br /><br />But, they won't be. Florida or Oklahoma undoubtedly will. Laughable that Oklahoma could win the National Title, despite losing to Texas, on a neutral field no less, but that's been beaten to death, so I won't go on about it here. Not to mention USC, who also has a claim to a #1 overall ranking. But that's what the BCS is designed for: many teams, each with an equally legitimate argument for why they should win the national title, and with no resolution at all.<br /><br />Oh wait, that's <I>not</I> what the BCS was designed to do? My mistake. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-13964400149700091272009-01-06T22:14:00.004-05:002009-01-06T22:42:40.595-05:00What I'm Watching -- USA Network (More specifically, House and NCIS repeats)<!-- google_ad_section_start --><I>Ed Note: Yes, I'm back. I missed blogging. Too much to talk about I guess.</I><br /><br />Little did I appreciate syndication until, oh, about two months ago. Most of the time, when a television show had gone into syndication, it didn't really affect my life any. Sure, I'd catch a <I>Seinfeld</I> episode when nothing else was on, but most shows in syndication that I'd flip to I'd already seen every episode of.<br /><br />That's until I started watching <I>House</I>. Yes, I know I'm late to the party. I don't know why I didn't watch the show from the start, but I have a very vague recollection of seeing previews for the show when it first started, and for some reason, I thought it was a science-fiction show. Probably because it was sold as a doctor solving impossible-to-solve (read, or at least I believed,: other-wordly) cases. Ironically, basically, I thought <I>House</I> was <I>Fringe</I>. I don't think it helped that the one episode I later did see, probably a year later or so, was when Omar Epps' Dr. Foreman was going insane due to contracting a rare disease from a patient (which somehow confirmed in my mind that the show was not anything I'd be interested in watching). And besides, I had a dozen other shows I watched, no problem.<br /><br />Well, with most of those shows (<I>West Wing</I>, <I>The Practice</I>, <I>Las Vegas</I>, <I>Jack & Boddy</I>, <I>Ed</I>, and <I>Alias</I>, among others) going off the air, I gave <I>House</I> a shot last year (the addition of Olivia Wilde to the cast probably didn't hurt either). And, like most others, I was hooked almost immediately. And, luckily, this fall is exactaly when the USA Network started airing <I>House</I> episodes in syndication, every day. With <I>House</I> marathons practically every weekend. At one point, I had over 25 episodes of <I>House</I> on my DVR. And then, thanks to a week of DirecTV outages (don't ask), I caught up faster than I thought. Having now seen almost every <I>House</I> episode (or, at least, every old episode USA Network has aired, which is most all of them), I'm a true believer. I don't know what I've been missing for all these years. And with <I>House</I> now on Monday's before <I>24</I>, I never need to leave my couch. <I>House</I>, <I>24</I>, the 10:00 <I>Countdown with Keith Olbermann</I> repeat, <I>How I Met Your Mother</I> on my DVR from 11 to 11:30, watch the Leno monologue and Headlines, and then fall asleep. That's a great night of television right there.<br /><br />So, given how the USA Network came through with <I>House</I>, I decided to give another show a chance that I've never seen but everyone else seems to love. Over the Christmas holiday, in between two days of <I>House</I> marathons, the cable network aired a full day of <I>NCIS</I> episodes. I didn't know much about <I>NCIS</I> other than it was a spin-off of another show I never watched (<I>JAG</I>), it was sort-of-like <I>CSI</I>, and it starred Mark Harmon, who not only had a great four-episode run as a secret service agent on <I>The West Wing</I>, but who is married to Pam Dauber, who was Mindy on <I>Mork and Mindy</I>, and more importantly, went to North Farmington High School, of which I am also a proud alum (<I>Ed Note:</I> Wow, that was a long sentence, even for me. I'm a bit rusty at blogging obviously.) And I'm hooked. Now that I've watched all of <I>House</I> that USA has to offer, DVRing multiple episodes of NCIS a day should give me plenty to watch in case my satellite ever goes out again. <br /><br />Of course, it would probably be better if instead of watching <I>House</I> and <I>NCIS</I> I got back to reading the numerous books I have on my list to read (I started <I>Team of Rivals</I> after finishing my first Lincoln biography, <I>Lincoln</I>, and need to get back to it) but I'm enjoying what USA Network has to offer for the time being. And with <I>24</I>, <I>LOST</I>, and <I>Damages</I> set to make returns in the next three weeks, something tells me my TV will continue to get a workout. Thank God for HD.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-55672259124717698612008-09-25T22:56:00.004-04:002008-09-25T23:10:09.894-04:00The Democrats Must Pass The Bailout Plan, On Their Own If Necessary<!-- google_ad_section_start -->John McCain has said before that he'd rather win a war than a Presidential election. And he's all but said that Barack Obama is willing to lose a war if it means being elected President. With House Republicans and Senator McCain killing any hope of saving this nation's economy from almost certain catastrophe (and after reading and listening to some of the smartest minds in the world discuss what might happen if this deal doesn't get done, catastrophe is no overstatement), the Democrats must save this country's financial system. There are enough votes in the Senate to pass a bailout plan. There are enough votes in the House to pass a bailout plan. And the President is prepared to sign a bailout plan. The only thing standing in the way other than John McCain? Politics.<br /><br />See, Democrats want to pass the bailout and save the country's financial system from ruin. But, the plan, no thanks to an unpopular President with next to no credibility and no ability to convince the American people of anything, has been completely botched in its presentation to the American people. Is it bailing out Wall Street? Absolutely. But, that doesn't mean the plan is helping out risky executives while leaving American taxpayers out in the cold. It's bailing out Wall Street to get credit moving again and to get banks lending again and to stop businesses from failing, banks from closing, and people in their homes. And it's not "spending" $700 billion. It's investing it, in assets which should eventually turn a profit for the country. Is it a risk? Yes. But, unless we enter a second Great Depression, we won't lose everything. But the American people don't understand that, and they either don't understand the bailout or viscerally oppose it, in large part because they don't understand the consequences of not supporting it.<br /><br />So why won't the Democrats pass the bailout and save the world? Because they are afraid it won't work. And because the plan has been so mis-sold, and is so unpopular, the Democrats are afraid to go it alone. Well, sometimes, you have to lose an election to win a war. Sometimes you have to make a decision you know is right even if it's unpopular.<br /><br />Screw the House Republicans. They were never on board to begin with and they likely never were going to be. And don't you dare let John McCain, in a disgustingly partisan press release blame Senator Obama for the breakdown in negotiations. Had John McCain not shown up in Washington, this deal may have been done by now. Instead, it's a boondoggle threatening the world economy. Because John McCain wanted to look "Presidential" because his campaign was failing. Yeah, he really puts "Country First." <br /><br />Pass the plan tomorrow without the House Republicans. Save the country worry about the politics later. If the Democrats have the votes, and they are afraid to exercise them because the Republicans won't give them cover, then everyone involved deserves blame. Saving our economy should come first, even if that means going it alone.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-22980419193496152302008-09-02T21:44:00.004-04:002008-09-02T22:03:21.581-04:00Protecting Palin Too Much Plus: Palin's Jews for Jesus Problem<!-- google_ad_section_start -->...If you even dare ask about Governor Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience (or lackthereof) the question is so out-of-bounds, so sexist (even when it comes from a woman, Campbell Brown) that John McCain was so offended that he jilted Larry King of all people, canceling a scheduled interview on Larry King Live after Campbell Brown dared ask the question. Give me a break. A few months after Sarah Palin called Hillary Clinton a "whiner" because her campaign was complaining about sexism (saying such comments did women a disservice), the McCain-Palin campaign has decided that any criticism of Palin, no matter how substantive, is sexism. <br /><br />The fact that she was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it? Can't bring that up, that's sexism. The fact that her town of 6,500 people received almost $30 million in earmarks? Can't go there. How about her abuse of power in firing a public safety commissioner after he refused to fire her brother in law? Or her and her husband's support of the Alaska Independence Party, which wants a vote on succeeding from the Union and whose founder has damned America and said he would refuse to be buried in the US flag? Or, today's news that <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13098.html" target="blank">Palin's church, while Palin was present, allowed an anti-Jewish group to preach.</A> In August, while Palin was in the pews, Palin's pastor turned over the pulpit to the founder of "Jews for Jesus" which aims to covert those of the Jewish faith, and who said, in front of Palin, that terror attacks on Israel were God's wrath against uncoverted Jews. I can't make this up. <blockquote> An illustration of that gap came just two weeks ago, when Palin’s church, the Wasilla Bible Church, gave its pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the founder of Jews for Jesus.<br /><br />Palin’s pastor, Larry Kroon, introduced Brickner on Aug. 17, according to a transcript of the sermon on the church’s website.<br /><br />“He’s a leader of Jews for Jesus, a ministry that is out on the leading edge in a pressing, demanding area of witnessing and evangelism,” Kroon said.<br /><br />[ . . . . ] Brickner also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity.</blockquote><br />Why do I think that Sean Hannity, who spent months railing against Barack Obama (even demanding that he resign from the Senate) because of his association with Jerimiah Wright, won't be talking about how Palin should have walked out of her church, and how Palin should have stood up to her pastor. And worse than Obama, she was there that day in August when the Jews for Jesus founder spoke about how those who are Jewish have a "difficult time understanding the reality" that they need to convert to Christianity.<br /><br />But, I'm sure bringing this up just makes me sexist. Just one question then before I go. Does questioning Barack Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright or his lack of experience make Republicans racist? <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-16241635191801660542008-09-01T17:24:00.004-04:002008-09-01T17:46:00.697-04:00McCain Not Playing Politics With Gustav? Yeah, Not So Much<!-- google_ad_section_start -->John McCain has gotten a lot of credit in recent days, and deservedly so, for choosing to curtail part of the Republican National Convention in deference to the people of New Orleans the related areas who at this time are being hammered by the remnants of Hurricane Gustav. Good for McCain. He absolutely deserves credit for that. While it's also the right thing to do politically (attacking Obama and celebrating while a hurricane is punishing part of America doesn't work) McCain is paying a price for this decision, as his party will not get the chance to get their message out on an equal basis like the Democrats did last week.<br /><br />But, let's not kid ourselves, the McCain campaign absolutely is playing politics with the hurricane. And in many ways, what they accomplished today, and the news they buried today, by making it public on the same day all the newspapers, cable news networks, and evening newscasts are focused on the hurricane, was worth so much more than anything they could have gained from tonight's scheduled convention speeches from the vastly unpopular Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.<br /><br />What news did the McCain campaign release today that each could have been big stories, and could have been very damaging to the campaign? Three dings to the Vice President nobody (including, apparently, the McCain campaign) knows anything about. First was word that Palin's 17-year-old daughter <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2944356420080901" target="blank">is pregnant</A>. And, I agree <a href="http://thepage.time.com/obama-transcript-from-jay-newton-small/" target="blank">with what Barack Obama said earlier today</A> that families should be off-limit in Presidential campaigns. The story here isn't that Palin's daughter is pregnant, that's a private family matter. It's how McCain could trust somebody with the future of the country that he knows so little about, and that he's still learning about. <br /><br />One thing perhaps he didn't know, which was also very quietly released today, was news that Palin's husband <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/01/1318881.aspx" target="blank">was arrested for DUI in 1986.</A> Now does a candidate's husband's mistake as a 22-year-old disqualify that candidate from seeking higher office? Of course not. But there's no coincidence the news was released today when it would get absolutely zero attention because of the hurricane.<br /><br />And then there was the late breaking news that Palin <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h7VIY5GfDmjy-A5HsGLuHvA0SHtgD92U5TQO1" target="blank">has hired a private attorney for herself and her staff</A> related to allegations she fired an Alaska Public Safety Comissioner who refused to fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law. As Dan Abrams said on MSNBC this afternoon, it makes a lot of sense that Palin would hire a lawyer (especially since her deposition is likely to be taken in the next few weeks) and there's nothing inherently suspicious about doing so (in fact, it's the right and smart thing to do). But, again, politically, it won't look good. And there's no question the release of the news late this afternoon was done purposefully as to be buried by the hurricane coverage.<br /><br />Was the McCain campaign smart to release these news items today? Absolutely. No question. But let's not pretend that the timing was simply coincidental or that the McCain campaign wasn't trying to take advantage of the news dead zone the hurricane provided them to release these stories. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-79698922339400194752008-08-30T13:43:00.002-04:002008-08-30T14:04:40.749-04:00Lessons From President Bartlet: The Only Four Words That Matter About The Choice of Vice President<!-- google_ad_section_start -->As I was watching Barack Obama's equally awe-inspiring and uplifting acceptance speech Thursday night, a particular line jumped out at me. It's not that John McCain doesn't care, Obama argued, it's that John McCain doesn't get it. I turned to my buddy Dave with whom I was watching the speech, and I said, he just turned into Andrew Shepherd. Shepherd, of course, was Aaron Sorkin's President in <I>The American President</I>, played perfectly by Michael Douglas. After enduring a movie-full of negative character attacks by his Republican opponent, in the climax of the movie, Shepherd, after trying to take the high road the entire film lashes out in the press briefing room, with an awe-inspiring and uplifting response to the attacks. One of the key lines? <blockquote>I've known Bob Rumson for years. And I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy yelling into the rain is because he simply didn't get it. Well I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is he can't sell it.</blockquote><br /><center><object width="400" height="325"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mWRVbWMvi7c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mWRVbWMvi7c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="325"></embed></object></center><br />And I laughed afterwards when both Brian Williams and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC noted the very same point about Sorkin's words. Well, there are more lessons to be learned from Aaron Sorkin, this time about John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his Vice President.<br /><br />During the third season of <I>The West Wing</I>, as Martin Sheen's President Josiah a Bartlet was preparing to run for a second term, the question came up about whether he should replace his Vice President on the ticket. Texas, the state the Vice President carried in the election for Bartlet four years ago was no longer in play, and the two never got along and often clashed. So the whole episode, Bartlet's west wing team held closed door meetings, debating whom could replace the Vice President. But, at the end of the episode, President Bartlet put a stop the speculation and reaffirmed his commitment to his Vice President. Why? Because when it comes to selecting a Vice President, only four words really matter.<br /><center><object width="400" height="325"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RupilpyB7oo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RupilpyB7oo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="325"></embed></object></center><br />And what are those four words? <blockquote>LEO: I think that issue is probably worth further discussion but we're done talking about the ticket. The President's made it very clear that he wants the Vice President to remain the Vice President and he wrote down his one and only reason.<br /><br />[He pulls out the paper and hands it to Josh.]<br /><br />JOSH: "Because I could die." Well, of course he's right, sir.</blockquote><br />Because I Could Die. That's why you pick a Vice President, who while he or she may sure up your weaknesses, or help you electorally, at the end of the day, is somebody you are supremely confident could lead the country, and in many ways the world. It's a lesson Barack Obama took to heart. He could have chosen Virginia Governor Tim Kaine as his running mate. The two are very close personally, Obama trusts Kaine (in some ways perhaps more than the man he selected, Joe Biden), he may have helped Obama carry Virginia, and he re-enforced Obama's message of change. But, Kaine had serious questions about his experience (he's only been Governor of Virginia for one term and had little-to-no foreign policy experience) so Obama went in a different direction, and his choice of Biden (no offense to Kaine) was in the better interest of the country. John McCain didn't heed that lesson, and chose a Vice President who in no way would be qualified or ready to be President tomorrow. <br /><br />Governor Palin may have a lot of positive attributes but she John McCain failed President Bartlet's and Aaron Sorkin's only test for the selection of the Vice President. "Because I Could Die." It's four words John McCain should have thought about before he named a Vice President he met just one time, and spoke with about the Vice Presidency, on the phone, just once. It's about putting the country first, instead of one's political or personal ambitions. And it's another example of why John McCain's judgment and temperament are not suited for the Oval Office. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-62241636181248670502008-08-29T19:13:00.006-04:002008-08-30T11:35:11.225-04:00Country First? Not With McCain'sVP Choice<!-- google_ad_section_start -->There's a lot to like about John McCain's Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin. She has challenged her own party on ethics and other issues. She's smart and tough, and getting new blood in Washington is never a bad thing. But, that means she'd make a good Senator. Vice President? At 44, having been Governor of one of the smallest states in the Union (population wise) for less than two years, and having been mayor of a town of just 6,500 people before that, and with no interest in foreign policy (<a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/in-over-her-hea.html#more" target="blank">she's been quoted as saying</A> she doesn't know anything about the conditions in Iraq related to our exiting the country) she is nowhere near "ready to lead" (to steal a McCain phrase).<br /><br />Yet John McCain has put her one heartbeat away from the Presidency. This is despite <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12988.html" target="blank">meeting her just one time</A>, <span style="font-style:italic;">just six months ago (!)</span> and having talked with her about the Vice Presidency exactly <I>one (!)</I> time (on the phone no less). Apparently it's harder to get hired at a fast food restaurant than it is to be named the second most powerful person in the world in John McCain's administration. And while that's not completely fair (I'm sure there was a thorough vetting process which took place) it's not completely unfair either. In many ways, this bothers me more than anything else about the Palin pick, even her inexperience. <br /><br />The selection of Vice President is often seen as a political gambit, but in many ways, it has to be about putting "County First" to use John McCain's own campaign slogan. Because the Vice President is one heartbeat away from running the free world, ensuring that the Vice President, more than anything else, is qualified to be President, has to be the first quality satisfied. Should something happen to the President, the country has to know that the Vice President is capable of taking over immediately. And how can John McCain know that Sarah Palin is ready? How do you not meet and interview the person, in-person? How do you only speak to the person <I>ONE</I> time about the job? How can you be sure that Sarah Palin is best for the country having hardly spoken to her. If John McCain allows his staff to make this decision for him (and if they didn't, they certainly must have played an extraordinary large role given the lack of personal contact between McCain and Palin) what other critical decisions will McCain similarly have little input on as President? He didn't just pick somebody the country doesn't know very well. He picked someone whom <I>he</I> doesn't know very well. How could he? He's met or spoken to her just twice in his entire life. <br /><br />As Paul Begala put it so well yesterday night on Larry King, would you entrust your children, if something happened to you, to somebody who you met one time at a luncheon and with whom you've spoken with one time, on the phone, about raising your kids? That would sound absurd. Yet John McCain has entrusted the future of over 300 million Americans (and in many ways, the future of the world) to Sarah Palin, despite not knowing her at all. She may turn out to be a tremendous Vice President, but how can John McCain know that for sure? How can he gamble with the country's future like this?<br /><br />This shows me a real lack of consideration on John McCain's part which really concerns me about how he'll make decisions if he becomes President. His lack of personal engagement is remarkable in a decision this important.<br /><br />And what about Palin's stances on the issues? We already know, based on her past statements, that she knows very little about foreign policy. She's fiercely pro-life (going so far as to say she wouldn't allow abortions even in cases of rape and incest), is a life long member of the NRA, and has talked favorably about requiring schools to teach creationism in public schools. And she has a <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Palin_on_Israel.html?showall" target="blank">very thin (and questionable) record on Israel.</A> Both her and her husband were fundraisers for Pat Buchanan when he ran for President (he proudly admitted that on MSNBC tonight, giving Palin a stronger Buchanan connection than Politco's Ben Smith earlier believed) and while I enjoy watching Buchanan on MSNBC and think he's very knowledgeable about political issues, he has never been a strong (or any kind) of real friend of Israel. I can't imagine that's going to play well in the very swing state of Florida, where Obama has shown surprising strength.<br /><br />John McCain needed to follow his own slogan and put "County First" with his Vice Presidential pick. It's what Barack Obama did. There is no question that should something happen where Barack cannot continue as President, Joe Biden is ready and qualified to be President. John McCain, on the other hand, selected a woman with an extraordinarily thin resume whom he hardly knows. And this is after spending months convincing America that Barack Obama is not ready to lead. With the way he made his choice (even more than the choice itself), John McCain certainly did not put his "Country First." <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-44823084883791558892008-08-24T19:04:00.002-04:002008-08-24T19:28:24.753-04:00Barack Obama's Secret Weapon: Tom Ridge?<!-- google_ad_section_start -->I was thinking today, could Barack Obama's secret weapon against John McCain be none other than former Pennsylvania Governor and first Homeland Security Secretary, Republican Tom Ridge? May not be as crazy as it first sounds. Here's why.<br /><br />As <a href="http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/mccainwhitman_buzz_in_denver.php" target="blank">Marc Ambinder brilliantly points out today over at the Atlantic</A>, John Mccain is running into a real problem with his choices for Vice President. A week ago, Mitt Romney was the odds on favorite, and I was a firm believer that even if McCain didn't like or trust Romney, he still had to pick him politically. Romney, because of his Michigan connections, would give McCain a coin-flip (or better) chance to win here (and Barack Obama, barring a very strange election, cannot win without Michigan) and Romney also could put both Colorado and Nevada, two traditionally Republican states Obama is showing real strength in, out of reach by maximizing Mormon turnout. But, Romney's chances took a real hit when McCain made his housing gaffe last week. After being painted as out-of-touch with middle-class Americans, can McCain really put Mitt Romney, worth north of $250 million, on the ticket without playing right into Obama's hands? And not only that, look at the ads McCain has run since Joe Biden was named as Vice President. Ads of Biden and Clinton bashing Obama. Mitt Romney said much worse things about John McCain during the Republican primary. And even worse, McCain said horrible things about Romney. Imagine those ads. And McCain opened the door by running his anti-Obama ads starring Joe Biden.<br /><br />And as Ambinder notes, even the other supposed finalist, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, doesn't look that attractive anymore now that Biden is Obama's VP. Pawlenty, aside from being as inexperienced (if not more so) than Obama, would be eaten alive by Biden in the Vice Presidential debate (just as John Edwards was by Dick Cheney in 2004). And how can McCain continue to attack Obama for not being ready to lead, and then pick Pawlenty as his second in command?<br /><br />So how does Tom Ridge play into all of this? In his heart of hearts, McCain would almost certainly choose Ridge as his VP. The two are very close, Ridge has both executive experience (Homeland Security Secretary and as Governor of Pennsylvania) and knows Washington well enough to help get things done on the Hill. Plus, electorally, he puts Pennsylvania very much in play, and if McCain wins Pennsylvania, just as does if he wins Michigan, he makes the electoral math very very difficult for Obama. The problem with Ridge? Just one. He's pro-choice. And the so-called "Maverick" of politics has given in to the right-wing of his party and has eliminated Ridge from consideration. <br /><br />As soon as McCain names his VP, especially if it's Romney, Obama needs to come out with a Tom Ridge ad, very much in the same vein as McCain's ad today about Hillary Clinton and the Vice Presidency. The ad needs to tout Ridge's credentials, his closeness to McCain, and then ask "So why is he not on the ticket? Because he's pro-choice and John McCain gave into the right wing of his party and chose ____ instead. Some Maverick." Or something like that. Maybe "Is he looking out for your values or theirs" while flashing pictures of George Bush and Dick Cheney. <br /><br />The ad would accomplish multiple goals. First, it would remind women, especially those Hillary supporters, that McCain is staunchly pro-life. Because of his "moderate" imagine, many women wrongly believe McCain is pro-choice, and because of that, they find him easier to support, especially given their feelings about the Hillary Clinton-Obama primary. This would show them how pro-life he really is. Secondly, it would show that McCain is giving in to the far right, and doing so against his own better judgment, and in many ways, against what's best for the country. And it would instantly create credibility questions about McCain's decision making process.<br /><br />Would it last long in this era of a 24-hour news cycle? Maybe. But it would make a powerful point, and maybe help change the public's perception of John McCain. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-4973557131122047062008-08-24T08:52:00.005-04:002008-08-24T09:14:42.359-04:00McCain Campaign: Great Idea, Horrible Execution on Hillary Clinton Ad<!-- google_ad_section_start -->As I was watching MSNBC's coverage of the Barack Obama-Joe Biden unveiling yesterday (after I got home from the Lions 26-6 victory over Cleveland, thank God for DVRs) I got to thinking. While the McCain campaign's original ad in response to Obama picking Biden was utterly predictable (a clip of Biden attacking Obama at a debate for being inexperienced followed by Biden praising McCain) I thought that if the McCain campaign was really smart, they'd run an ad praising Hillary Clinton, and try to draw a wedge with Hillary voters and get them riled up that she wasn't on the ticket. After all, in the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, the reason why Obama is only up on McCain by an insignificant margin is because of the significant number of Hillary voters either supporting McCain or refusing to support Obama. These are liberal-learning voters, mostly Democrats, but they are angry with Obama for winning the nomination and they are currently preventing him from stretching his lead over McCain. And had a Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee won the Republican nomination, they almost certainly wouldn't have supported those candidates, McCain, because of his "maverick" reputation, and the mistaken belief by many that he's a moderate (when he's not), is a palatable choice. Especially when compared with Obama.<br /><br />So what has the McCain campaign done? Put together a Hillary Clinton ad, questioning Obama for not putting her on the ticket. The problem? The ad makes no sense when viewed next to their first ad about Biden. Take a look at both ads:<br /><center><object width="375" height="325"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RDVUPqoowf8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RDVUPqoowf8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="375" height="325"></embed></object><br /><br /><object width="375" height="325"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3NrQ36Djf2E&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3NrQ36Djf2E&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="375" height="325"></embed></object></center><br />So let me get this straight. Barack Obama picked a running mate (Joe Biden) who at a debate said he wasn't ready to lead, but he refused to pick another (Hillary Clinton) because she dared question his policies? Am I missing something here? If Barack Obama eschewed Hillary because she didn't agree with him on every issue, then why pick Biden, who, as McCain's first ad is all about, questioned Obama's ability to lead the country? Doesn't Obama picking Biden show that he's willing, if not eager, to select a VP who isn't a sycophant? <br /><br />The message of these two ads completely conflict with one another. They are utterly inconsistent, and when viewed together, they make no logical sense. It's almost as if whomever created the Hillary ad never saw the Biden ad. Plus, there were a lot more harsh comments by Hillary they could have used (Shame on you Barack Obama!; When you were representing your slum landlord contributor Rezko; John McCain has a lifetime of experience and Barack Obama has a speech he gave in 2002) which would fit much more neatly into the "not ready to lead" meme the McCain campaign has been pushing and would have fit with the theme of the Biden ad. Throw in a line about "18 million voters and she wasn't even on his short list?" and a McCain clip praising Hillary and there's a very effective 30-second spot which should really get the Clintonite blood boiling. <br /><br />Instead, we get this ad, which while a good idea in theory, does not fit with McCain's broader message, and is contrary to his earlier attack ad on Biden. Good idea McCain campaign, just horrendous execution. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-60902997499819826512008-08-23T09:18:00.002-04:002008-08-23T09:30:06.604-04:00Why I Like Joe Biden<!-- google_ad_section_start -->Barack Obama finally selected his Vice President, text messaging his supporters around 3 AM yesterday announcing that Senator Joe Biden was his choice for Vice President (I, however, have yet to get that text message, though I did get an e-mail from Obama around 4:50 a.m. announcing the pick). As I wrote earlier, Biden was my pick for VP. He has an extremely compelling personal story (he was elected to the United States Senate at age 29, then months later he lost his wife and infant daughter to a horrific car accident, was sworn into the Senate from his sons hospital beds as they recovered from their injuries sustained in the same accident; he ran for the Presidency in 1988 and then almost died of a brain aneurysm;, and he continues, to this day, to ride Amtrak back and forth from Delaware to Washington each day, eschewing living in D.C.), he has an encyclopedic knowledge of foreign policy and will undoubtedly help Obama govern effectively, and he's fiercely independent and won't be afraid to question and challenge Obama when they disagree.<br /><br />Going into the primaries, I wasn't sold on Biden. But after watching him campaign, and especially his performances in the debates, I changed my tune very quickly. From the Democratic CNN YouTube debate on July 24, 2007 (wow, this election has been going on for a <I>long</I> time, and July was almost eight months into it to boot):<br /><blockquote>As for who else really impressed me, Joe Biden continues to show that he may be the smartest candidate of the bunch. A bit angry at times, but while everyone else talks about getting out of Iraq, Biden sounds like he actually knows how to get out of Iraq. On foreign policy, there is nobody better right now than Biden, and he sounds intelligent on the domestic issues too. He has no chance to be President, but should a Democrat win in 2008, I couldn't think of a better candidate for Secretary of State.</blockquote><br />I had much the same opinion in September after an MSNBC debate:<br /><blockquote>Edwards, as well as Joe Biden, had good nights. I like Biden more and more every time I see him. Sure, he's not going to win, but he's the only one, especially when compared to Clinton, to actually answer questions, and he's incredibly knowledgeable when it comes to Iraq and foreign policy. Would he make a good President? I don't know. But he needs a prominent role in our government.</blockquote><br />And then there was the December 2007 debate:<br /><blockquote>And one last debate thought, Joe Biden, again, a great performance. More than anyone else, including Obama, Biden has impressed me in these debates. So much so that I'm going to write his name in and vote for him in the Michigan primary. It doesn't mean much since the Democrats have all taken their names off the ballot here in accordance with the wishes of the DNC (except for Hillary of course) so our primary is pretty meaningless, but Biden deserves it. He doesn't want to be VP, and probably wouldn't be a good electoral choice, but I'd make him Secretary of State or Defense or anything he wanted if I were the next President.</blockquote><br />So, while I was pushing Biden for Secretary of State, Vice President works too. I think he was the best choice, and he's the right choice. And he's going to be a fiery advocate and campaigner for Obama. I can't wait to see the team in action. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-13094097603417596422008-08-21T18:40:00.003-04:002008-08-21T21:54:28.026-04:00McCain Camp Misses Big Opportunity<!-- google_ad_section_start -->I don't know if the McCain Campaign failed to finish their negative Tony Rezko ad in time for the nightly newscasts to air it tonight, or if the networks, without knowledge or confidence the ad will ever air (McCain in the past this election cycle has created strong attack ads but not actually paid to air them, with the aim of having the networks air the ad for free on news and opinion broadcasts, which they have been more than happy to do) but the ad did not air on either NBC Nightly News or ABC's World News Tonight. Instead, the pieces the networks ran focused on Obama's attacks, and his tying McCain's statement that he doesn't know how many houses he knows to how out of touch McCain is with problems in the economy.<br /><center><object width="325" height="300"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vpmFd25tRqo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vpmFd25tRqo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="325" height="300"></embed></object></center><br />The Rezko ad is a brutal hatchet job on Obama. While Obama's negative ad today at least is tangentially related to policy (asking how McCain can understand or fix the economy if he doesn't know it's broken) McCain's ad is completely unrelated to policy. It's a total negative character attack, essentially saying "Obama is a crook who associates with other crooks. He does them political favors and he swindles real estate on the side." Of course, Rezko is not one of Obama's biggest fundraisers by any calculation (and he never donated a dime to Obama's Presidential campaign, and all of the funds Rezko raised or had any connection have long been donated to charity by Obama) and Obama was never the subject of any suspicion of wrong-doing related to Rezko. But, that's surely not the picture painted by McCain's ad.<br /><center><object width="325" height="300"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vjC2AlWy6CI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vjC2AlWy6CI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="325" height="300"></embed></object></center><br />I'll be honest, nothing surprises me in politics, but I really thought McCain was more honorable than the campaign he's running. The advantage to having McCain as the Republican nominee, and Obama as the Democratic nominee, was supposed to be a civil campaign. Instead, McCain has run almost entirely negative ads, mostly involving Obama's character (not his policies) and he has repeatedly questioned Obama's patriotism (including saying that Obama would choose to lose a war if it meant he was elected President). Obama, in recent days, has gone more on the attack, but always couched in policy distinctions, not personal ones. John McCain has chosen not to follow that path. And it's working, because the polls have tightened, and McCain seems to have the wind at his back. But, something tells me, McCain would not have accepted this kind of campaign when he ran in 2000. But if you want to win badly enough, and you are willing to do whatever your advisers tell you to do, then this is the kind of campaign you get. One indistinguishable from the campaign George W. Bush ran <I>against</I> McCain in 2000. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-57992376158217247322008-08-18T20:19:00.003-04:002008-08-18T20:53:29.131-04:00The Veepstakes<!-- google_ad_section_start -->As we get to crunch time in the so-called Veepstakes (with Drudge via the New York Times reporting Barack Obama could announce his choice as early as Wednesday morning) it appears that the names for Obama are narrowed to the three which have been at the top of the list for months now: Senators Joe Biden and Evan Bayh and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.<br /><br />And, maybe coincidentally, and maybe purposefully, each represents a different kind of Vice President and the reasons for selecting each are very different. Biden doesn't help Obama with any particular state on the electoral map (maybe he solidifies Pennsylvania, but I don't think that states in much jeopardy anyway) but he provides Obama with the veteran, foreign-policy expert many believe he needs, he's highly respected and has a national profile, and he "checks a lot of boxes" as Chuck Todd would say. Bayh seems to be an electoral choice. Indiana, a perpetually red state, is turning blue, in large part because of the economic woes, and in part because Obama's familiarity in neighboring Illinois. Bayh on the ticket could tip the state to Obama. And Bayh's very public support of Hillary Clinton doesn't hurt either as Obama tries, still, to soothe things over with Clinton supporters. And there's Tim Kaine. While Governor of Virginia, Obama will likely win or lose the state whether or not Kaine's on the ticket. So why Kaine? Obama and Kaine are close personally, so they will work well together, and Obama trusts Kaine, which is crucial with a VP pick. And Kaine is not part of the Washington establishment, like Biden (and to a lesser extent) Bayh, so he doubles down on the "change" message.<br /><br />I think Bayh comes in third place here. He's perpetually on the short list for VP but never picked, and despite the desire to put Indiana in the Democratic column, I just don't think Obama's going to go with him. Which means it comes down to Bayh and Biden.<br /><br />First, who I think Obama will select: Tim Kaine. While many in the national media have consistently said that Obama needs a foreign-policy guy as his VP (hence the talk of Biden, Wes Clark, and Sam Nunn), Obama has never signaled he was thinking that way. In fact, all of his public comments have been just the opposite. While some have called him cocky, and that may be a bridge too far, there is no doubt Obama is supremely confident in his foreign policy judgment. And with very good reason, as his prescient objections to the Iraq War prove. It doesn't seem like Obama believes that foreign policy is a real weakness which mandates the VP nail down that policy area. And Obama certainly seems like the kind of person that would value the personal relationship with his VP and the ability to trust that VP above all else. And there's no question Obama and Kaine are close, and both are simpatico when it comes to fundimentally changing how business is done in Washington.<br /><br />The problem? Kaine's almost more inexperienced than Obama (he's been Governor for less than a full term), has zero national profile (and thus wouldn't help the ticket gain any steam or erase any doubts voters may have about Obama, and in fact, may enlarge the doubts people have), and he seems like a third choice from his state alone. With word leaking out last week (courtesy of Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic) that the Obama campaign was pressuring former Virginia Governor Mark Warner to submit his name to be vetted for VP (he declined to concentrate on his blowout of a US Senate Race and was subsequently named Keynote Speaker at the Democratic Convention next week) and with Senator Jim Webb, a perfect VP choice, also declining, Kaine's selection could (and maybe should) be seen as Obama settling. And one should never settle on the VP choice. And most importantly, should something happen to Obama, can you really imagine a President Kaine? Just think about that question for a minute.<br /><br />Now, my choice would be Joe Biden. I was thoroughly impressed with Biden in the Democratic primaries. So much so that because the Michigan primary meant nothing, I planned on voting for Biden before I learned doing so would make my vote invalid. Nobody running for President (and perhaps nobody else, although, I reserve judgment out of respect for the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin) had a better understanding, knowledge, and ability to articulate a vision of the quagmire in Iraq and other foreign policy happenings than Biden. And while John McCain likes to tout his "Straight Talk Express" there is no doubt that Joe Biden will always tell you what he's thinking, and what he's honestly thinking, and to prove it, he's gotten himself into some trouble speaking his mind. He gives Obama the experience and gravitas Obama may lack, he'd be a huge asset to the country as Vice President. And he's instantly believable and credible as President. And , back to those "boxes" again. He's Catholic. He's blue collar. He's popular with the kinds of voters Obama may have a hard time attracting. And while Obama may be confident in his own foreign policy judgments (again, with good reasons), voters still aren't. Voters need to be convinced. Joe Biden will do that. People will feel much better about Obama as President with the knowledge he has somebody as his VP to support him. Maybe people shouldn't think like that, but they do, and Biden would instantly strengthen the ticket in ways Tim Kaine and Evan Bayh would not.<br /><br />I hope I'm wrong, and I hope Biden is the pick. We should know by the end of the week. But, while Obama's heart may be leaning towards Kaine, he should make this choice with his head, and he should choose the Senator from Delaware.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-19138027181745607182008-07-06T19:40:00.002-04:002008-07-06T20:08:55.061-04:00What I'm Reading - American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson<!-- google_ad_section_start -->As I have mentioned before, I own way too many books. Well, that has a negative connotation to it, which I don't mean, because I don't regret owning so many books (maybe, if I could do it over again, there are a number of sports related books I purchased at a discount from a book outlet website I wouldn't buy again, but they look good on my bookshelves). So the question always is, when I finish one book (as I did this weekend with <I>John Adams</I>) what to do next. I have over 200 books in my ever-growing collection, and I've read only just over 50. Close to another dozen (including Bill Clinton's <I>My Life</I> which I started but never finished before I began Law School) are in some stage of being read. Instead of picking one of those back up (and in truth, some, I'll likely start fresh if/when I pick them up again), being in a very Revolutionary history state of mind, I picked up Joseph Ellis' Thomas Jefferson's biography <I>American Sphinx</I>.<br /><br />After the over 650 page Adams' biography, Ellis' character study of Jefferson is just under 370-pages of text, so the long weekend allowed me to devour it almost whole (I have only 70-some pages to go and may finish tonight). I continue to be fascinated by the friendship, rivalry, and correspondence between Adams and Jefferson (so much so that my next book will be one I purchased this weekend, Ellis' study of Adams post-Presidential life which goes deeper into the Adams-Jefferson relationship; I also almost purchased a 600-page text containing the actual letters between John and Abigail Adams and Jefferson throughout their lives, but I left that purchase for another day). And as I learn more about Jefferson, I become more conflicted on what to think of him. As Ellis writes, he is truly a unique character in history, full of honest but real contradictions. What I find most interesting are not his internal battles over slavery, but of his thoughts on government and revolutions. His demand for personal freedom is laudable, but his thoughts on letting laws and governments lapse every generation are wild, and his appreciation, and even desire, for sometimes bloody revolutions (which he thought would ensure citizen freedom) are by today's standards dangerous. <br /><br />I don't leave these books though h a lower opinion of Jefferson, but of a decidedly improved opinion of Adams, whose left-behind and under-appreciated position in American History I am now much more sympathetic. The books too allow you to really see the human side of these American icons, the day-to-day struggles they faced in their everyday lives, which in admiring all they did for this country, we often forget they had. And learning about the early days of Presidential campaigns (where the principals would steadfastly refuse to campaign, but would bankroll and encourage others to engage in scurrilous attacks) makes today's campaigns look tame by comparison.<br /><br />In any case, another worthy read, which you could tell by how quick I read through it. My plan is to continue on this Revolutionary-era kick, with Ellis' Adams book next (<span style="font-style:italic;">Passionate Sage</span>) followed by his two composites next, the Pulitzer Prize winning <I>Founding Brothers</I> (of which I have read over half of, but so long ago, I'll likely start from scratch) and his newest book <I>American Creation.</I> Then I'll think I'll be done in this time period (despite having biographies of Franklin and Hamilton to go, as well as David McCollough's <I>1776</I> to read at some point as well). But, then again, there's always those Adams-Jefferson letters, right? <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-82828630574125345802008-07-05T21:38:00.003-04:002008-07-05T21:54:58.536-04:00What I'm Watching - Hancock<!-- google_ad_section_start -->What would a Fourth of July weekend be without a big movie from Will Smith? So, like many others (the film is set to gross at least $100 million in the United States this long weekend and will top its $150 million-plus budget with its worldwide take) I ventured out to see <I>Hancock</I> yesterday, Smith's newest film where he plays a Superhero who, well, doesn't understand or know how to act like a superhero.<br /><br />I'll be the first to admit I am not a superhero or comic-book movie person. So it is without regret that I readily admit to never having seen any of the <I>Spiderman</I> movies which have made so much money in recent years, or any of the <I>X-Men</i> or <I>Iron Man</I> or <I>Incredible Hulk</I> films. A few years back, when <I>Batman Begins</I> was all the rage, I went to the movies with some buddies, but while they saw Batman, I instead bought tickets for the well-done and vastly underrated boxing movie <I>Cinderella Man</I>.<br /><br />But <I>Hancock</I> looked (and was) different. While most superhero movies are pure fantasy (with a good deal of special effects, cool as they are, added in) and <I>Hancock</I> certainly has a good amount of that (it is, after all, a movie about a man with superhuman strength who can fly) what I enjoyed most about it was how grounded the movie is. What if a superhero, instead of constantly coming to victims' rescue, didn't understand or know how to use his or her powers, struggled with the psychology of being a superhero, and caused more harm than good, no matter the intent? That's how <I>Hancock</I> begins, and it's a fascinating concept and character study.<br /><br />I didn't find the laughs in <I>Hancock</I> as plentiful as some, but that's not why I wanted to see the movie. I went to see it for the dramatic story of a superhero struggling to be super, and for most of the movie that's what we got. And the big twist in the movie (which I won't reveal here) was well-done, and one I did not see coming (though, looking back, made sense and was subtly foreshadowed).<br /><br />Certainly a film well worth seeing, and much better than the poor reviews the movie seems to have been tagged with make it sound. And with Smith, the always funny Jason Bateman, and Charlize Theron (who makes just about anything worthwhile, and as an aside, I just realized this is the second Theron-Smith movie to be panned by critics, but which I actually enjoyed, with <I>The Legend of Bagger Vance</I> being the first) what more do you need?. And while I don't know if I need to see a sequel to the film (there's some talk into making the movie a franchise, a common idea in Hollywood these days anytime any movie does even remotely well at the box office) I recommend <I>Hancock</I>. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-83802622590669595002008-07-04T22:36:00.004-04:002008-07-04T23:19:42.578-04:00The Fourth of July<!-- google_ad_section_start -->It may be no coincidence, and certainly is fitting, that I finished David McCullough's wonderful <I>John Adams</I> this evening, surrounded by fireworks all around me (it really was something, standing on my balcony in Royal Oak, seeing fireworks from all over metro-Detroit in all directions, some just visible over the tree-line, some heard but not seen, others seen but not heard, and some almost directly in front of me). As great as HBO's recent mini-series of the same name was (it was based on McCollough's biography and will undoubtedly and deservedly win numerous awards at this year's Emmy's) the 651-page (751 counting the indexes) book was even better. While McCullough seems to be as much of Adams' advocate as his biographer, it is hard not to come away from reading the book with the highest regard for our nation's second President. Adams is often overlooked in history (Washington, Jefferson, and Ben Franklin get most of the credit for the Revolution and the success of the early United States) and his one term as President may not have been remarkable (he saved the country from war with France but earned the praise of neither political party at the time while doing so) but after reading the book, it is clear that no man fought harder to convince his fellow colonists that revolution was necessary and that independence was essential. And his work in France, Britain, and Holland, securing peace and security (and in Holland, much needed financial support) for the new nation may have been the most important and least appreciated and remembered parts of the Revolutionary War.<br /><br />It was remarkable to read about the founding generation, the letters between John and his wife Abigail (who could have been and would have been a great political leader herself had she been allowed to govern) and John and Thomas Jefferson, two of the brightest minds of their generation. It's incredible to think back and read about that time in history, where all of the greatest minds of the country gathered to form a new world order. And also to think about how different history would have been if e-mail, telephones, and Blackberries existed in the late 1700s. Much of time back then was spent waiting for word from across the ocean, and it could take weeks, if not usually month, to receive any word on how negotiations were progressing (or not) in matters of peace and war. And how much of history we would have lost had John and Abigail Adams spoken on the phone once a day instead of writing countless letters back and forth, which have provided us an first-row view of the most important period in our country's history.<br /><br />Whenever I say I'm interested in politics, sometimes I get quizzical looks, and am asked why. After all, most think politicians to be corrupt, and only interested in boosting their own ego and their own political party, advanced not by interest in country, but personal ambition. <a href="http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/most_americans_still_hold_these_truths_to_be_self_evident" target="blank">A recent Rasmussen survey bears that out.</A> Just 17-percent of the country "believe working for the government is more honorable than working in the private sector."<br /><br />But there is a difference, one that is often lost, between <B>politics</B> and <B>governance</B>. Yes, I'm interested in politics. The sport, the human chess match, the back-and-forth, the intellectual puzzles and arguments and the thrill of election night. The science of Barack Obama spending the Fourth of July in Montana (despite the Democrats not winning the state in a generation) or John McCain kicking off an economic tour as we inch towards a global recession. <br /><br />But, politics, to me, is a means to an end (though not an uninteresting or unenjoyable one). Governing is what's important. In the end, I'm interested in politics (and want to govern or help somebody else govern) because of the power and good that can be done when good men and women govern, and not in their own self-interest, but in the interest of their country. Jim Webb, for example, from the day he was elected to the United States Senate in 2006, has worked tirelessly to pass a 21st Century GI Bill. While soldiers returning from World War II were treated as heroes and given a first class college education in return for their service, those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have been all but forgotten. Some said a new GI Bill was too expensive and others, including John McCain and President Bush, believed such a generous reward to our armed forces was <I>too</I> generous, and would hurt retention by encouraging soldiers to leave the Army to get their degrees. As if one tour in Iraq was not enough for a man or woman to deserve a college education. But despite the opposition, Webb succeeded last month in passing the resolution, and President Bush grudgingly signed it into law. Thanks to Webb, a new generation of Americans will receive an education which will pay us all dividends in the future.<br /><br />The problem isn't that politics and governing isn't "honorable" as the Rasmussen poll suggests. Its that we have too few Jim Webb's in government. Just as the brightest minds of 1776 came together to not just declare independence and win a war many thought unwinniable, but to form a government, the form of which had never before been seen on such a large scale, and which has endured now for over 200-years, we need the brightest minds of this generation to come together to solve the problems we all now face. Otherwise, the government and the governing will be left in the hands of those whose decisions are shaped by self interest and greed, and who put party and politics above the needs of everyday Americans. <br /><br />It's an obligation to one's country and one's fellow citizen that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the Founding Generation uniquely understood. Governing <B>is</B> honorable. But only when honorable men and women are governing. And that's a lesson we all can take to heart on this Fourth of July. <!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4061385247142324658.post-18190883347495688402008-06-13T20:50:00.003-04:002008-06-13T21:07:25.716-04:00Tim Russert<!-- google_ad_section_start -->Over the past, oh, year (and longer than that really) there is probably nothing I have done more then watch MSNBC. The primaries, the election news, every debate, every primary night. And there was Tim Russert. We lost Tim Russert today, and I say "we" not because I knew Tim, but because the collective "we" as a country lost an irreplaceable voice today.<br /><br />I don't remember a death of somebody famous touching me so much as Tim's death. Partly because it was so stunning in its suddenness and unexpectedness, but partly because it had become second nature watching him, all the time, as I have the past year. Meet The Press, Morning Joe, NBC Nightly News, The Tim Russert Show, the weekly MSNBC primary nights where Tim was a dominant and invaluable presence. I have become so invested in this election and this Democratic primary, and watching Tim was an almost daily ritual.<br /><br />A lot of people may have watched Tim Russert, but I don't think anyone truly new how large of an impact he had on this country. It is not an exaggeration or hyperbole to say that if you were a politician, and you could not pass the Russert Test, if you could not make it through a one-hour grilling on Meet The Press, you had little future in national politics, much less any chance of being President. There has been a lot of controversy about the "vetters" Barack Obama has tapped to lead his search for a Vice President. Tim Russert was America's vetter. And there was nobody better at holding those in power accountable, and there was nobody better at asking the tough, but always fair, question.<br /><br />It seems too cruel that now that the Democratic Primary is over, and one of the most important Presidential elections in a generation is about to take place, Tim Russert won't be here to see it, to vet it for us, to comment on it.<br /><br />Tim was a lawyer, a journalist, a former political operative. A man who loved his hometown of Buffalo and his love of city matched by his love of the Buffalo Bills. And, of course, the love of his family, both his wife and son, and his extended NBC News family. America has lost one of its most important voices today, and only in the weeks and months ahead, when we look to Meet the Press to vet the next generation of political leaders, will we truly understand just what a loss to the country this is.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->Scott Warheithttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10695028853509424116noreply@blogger.com1